Justice Scalia must resign - E.J Dionne

So often, Scalia has chosen to ignore the obligation of a Supreme Court justice to be, and appear to be, impartial. He’s turned “judicial restraint” into an oxymoronic phrase. But what he did this week, when the court announced its decision on the Arizona immigration law, should be the end of the line.

Not content with issuing a fiery written dissent, Scalia offered a bench statement questioning President Obama’s decision to allow some immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children to stay. Obama’s move had nothing to do with the case in question. Scalia just wanted you to know where he stood.

104. Even if they think it's not.... it is! They are lousy selfish hypocrites.

117. You got it. Remember, IOKIYAR..

Actually, is that something that we can put in the DU dictionary, if it made the transition over to here? I think it should be there in some kind of official-ly like capacity, or something (if it's there already, nevermind and I'm lazy this morning.)

36. When I was barely out of law school I worked with a senior partner

who knew Scalia fairly well from their days on the Harvard Law Review. He told me that Scalia is extremely bright - bright enough to twist the law in whatever direction he wants it to go while providing himself scholarly and precedential cover.

The discussion came about in the context of a case he was going to be arguing before the SCOTUS. I got the distinct impression even then - 1989 - that this man did not trust Scalia any farther than he could throw him.

121. not a don, a soldier. nt

3. HACK

His worries about Arizona's right to protect their citizens & borders from invasion of undocumented workers...Montana's right to defend their state from the invasion of Corrupt SuperPacs, didn't get the same consideration.

5. Seriously, how do you remove a sitting Supreme Court justice?

11. here...

The Legislative Branch (Congress) has the power to impeach and convict a US Supreme Court justice if he or she commits wrongdoing, but no one has the power to "get rid" of a member of the Court simply because they don't like his (or her) decisions or ideology.

If Congress believes a judge or justice has done something to merit removal, the US House of Representatives files articles of impeachment (like a grand jury indictment), and the Senate conducts a trial to determine whether the justice is guilty. If convicted at trial, the justice will be removed from office.

39. You shouldn't hold your breath but if we mounted an impeachment campaign

73. With the speaker and rule committee in GOP hands, there is no way to mount a campaign in the House.

It would have to be done on the front steps, then the Democrats would be accused of running away or not doing their jobs. A lot of people are dependent on their voting and working there. The real work is, as always, in the states that elected the representatives. We're in charge of that, as usual.

74. Not in the House, on the net.

81. There is some influence on the net, but the voter choose the representatives.

We would not be having this if the Tea Party had not mobilized their base from the net and media to elect these SOBs. If they get away in the states with their gerrymandering and voter ID = poll tax schemes their elected state officials put into place, there will be no Democrats to kick around anymore. They will have achieved their goal they've worked on for a generation, a permanent GOP majority. There is no law saying we must have more than one party in this nation, or that we even need one party, either.

I grew up in a one-party state, it was all Democratic. There were about as many Republicans in the state as there are Communist party members now, and they never won a seat. Reagan changed that and now it has again turned to a virtually one party state again, GOP.

A lot of people vote on that basis, per the individual, but representation depends on coalitions between groups that cannot get along in real life. If we do not morph our online activities into changing the minds of real life voters, well...

2010 will be repeated until it's not even noticed anymore. Got to go, splitting head ache all day. Have a good one, E.

111. And Scalito, too!

58. The Legislative Branch (Congress) has the power to impeach

So... let's say a chief justice declares in his confirmation hearings he will not let personal ideology or feelings interfere with his rulings and then he makes a ruling that is clearly unconstitutional as well as not even in the scope of the issue before the court but very very beneficial to his fellow conservatives everywhere. Could we get him impeached too?

67. It seems to me that the

the obvious partiality shown by Scala, hunting with Cheney while "deciding" a case brought against him and many other judicial improprieties by Scala, would be quite adequate to bring impeachment proceedings against him
As for Thomas, his 20+ years of illegal IRS filings and his open support of tea-party groups while deciding cases they were involved in have tarnished any illusion of justice that the SCOTUS ever had.
Scala is openly biased while Thomas has proven that an actively criminal person(?) is "fit" to serve on the highest court in America.
Nothing short of impeachment could restore the illusion of justice that the SCOTUS is (at least) required to maintain.

Even if all of the other branches of our government functioned adequately, "our" SCOTUS would still be the epitome of political corruption.

14. Scalia has gone the way of the coo coo

The man is entering senility, plain and simple. So, is America supposed to follow judgements rendered by a man wearing a foil hat who sits in his chamber blowing bubbles and calling out insults? There should be something in place to address this kind of madness.

41. that election burns me up - what , constitutionally, allowed the scotus to inject themselves in

68. That's a good question. It was a total violation of the Constitution so why at least Democrats

let it pass, will always remain a mystery. That decision should have been fought until they were forced to get out of the way and allow the actual laws that govern elections, proceed. Then those who who tried to interfere with an election should have been impeached.

But we would have to be living in a country that respected the rule of law for that to happen. They are above the law and at a time when we so badly needed heroes, we had only appeasers.

88. Who had the power to stop them?

19. Here, here EJ......

In our judicial system, the court sits as an arbiter, not a fact finder or the source of personal opinion. They are to consider the case presented before them based on the arguments of the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s). They may rely on court precedent, legal theories, etc. in support of their decision. But the decision is to be limited to the facts presented, arguments actually presented before the court, and relevant legal analysis.

We know courts do issue dicta but Scalia's rant was not dicta. It was extraneous demagoguery from what is supposed to be an independent judiciary.

Scalia, resign or retire. You are not fit to sit as a Supreme Court Justice. You are better suited as a court jester.

He has tainted the high court with his lack of professionalism. Indeed Scalia is USING the Supreme Court as his personal platform to broadcast his not so sacred opinion!
Wisconsinites have seen this type of "shot gun" behavior from their own State Supreme Court when Prosser
strangled Justice Ann Walsh Bradley in Her own office after She asked him to leave. He also has called
Chief Justice Abrahamson a bitch.
So far, although there has supposedly been an investigation into Prosser's behavior, nothing has been done about it.

29. The U.S. is corrupt, he's corrupt, it's actually fitting

If we had a system that held criminals responsible, such as torture camp creators, then we might be able to address a corrupt court justice but we don't.

It's worthless to discuss Scalia's violations when other, ever worse violations are routinely ignored. The only way to address any of it is to change the system and to simply start putting these criminals on trial and expose all of their crimes to the public.

30. The man is totally corrupt and drunk with power.

33. We've known where Scalia stands for many years.

He stands with money, with privilege, with those who consider themselves more important than the masses, indeed like he obviously does.

An friend's son was in college in Chicago several decades ago. He was renting his room. When he moved out, his landlord tried to keep the security deposit, which was only returned when the young student was about to instigate legal action against the landlord. The landlord's name? Antonin Scalia. Later on, some idiot thought he was Supreme Court material.

86. Nice Job!

Here(Hopefully)is a link to the history of voter suppression starting with William Rehnquist in 1964(not the Jump Jim Crow era post abolition) from the GOP strategerie,code named operation Eagle Eye up to the present day.
I Hope this adds some flavor to the background analysis of the crooked fu(k3rs en their fascist takeover of the Constitution and BOR.

You know, comrades," says Stalin, "that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how.
-Boris Bazhanov Memoirs of Stalin's Former Secretary

92. And with Dennis it wouldn't happen either

Sure, he might introduce articles of impeachment. But they'd be DOA. Even if we "sweep" the election, the Democrats, having lived through attempts to impeach Earl Warren and William O. Douglas, aren't going to launch one against Scalia. Not a chance.

46. I agree with chloe

chloe14 wrote:

11:39 AM PDT

Why don't all you so-called constituionalists take a time-out and read it? Remember when you all were decrying activist judges? Now you defend the worst of the worst. Not another single one of you has the right to voice your opinion until you can testify under oath that you've read the Constitution and understand its clear intent for objective judges. Until then, just shut up!

77. They're the ones that make this decision

They could care less about what the majority of America thinks.

As a matter of fact, they KNOW this is a VERY Liberal country. If it were as Right Wing as they claim then they wouldn't need to spend a DIME on the Right Wing Think Tanks and FOX "News". Think about it. These people are cheap as hell. They wouldn't want to spend the money if America already agreed with them.

America lost faith in the Supreme Court after Bush v Gore and it was Fat Tony (Mike Malloy's pet name for him) that has repeatedly and openly defied any efforts to regain even the illusion that the Supreme Court is an unbiased sentinel of justice.

I say, hit him with everything. None of this "Fight Fire with Water" crap Democrats always do and no more of this believing there is some kind of universal judge out there to appeal to. Too often, Democrats act like they can hold their heads up high for not getting into the fight and take pride in their having kept everything on an intellectually appealing and reasoned nature.

The Right Wing declared war on us a long time ago and it's high time we stopped taking casualties and launch an offensive instead of half-assed counterattacks.

87. America IS a very liberal Country

THAT is a fact.... Americans are good people. We do not do this stuff, THEY do. America has NOT always been this way like it is now. Never let anyone make you think that it has been. They WANT you to think that... Because then, YOU think that there is really nothing to be changed about it. Think about that.... They DO NOT want you to know even what must be changed....Why do you think they TWIST American History like they DO? People NEED to THINK about that.

THIS IS A FACT THAT YOU ALL KNOW. YOU JUST DONT UNDERSTAND WHY THEY DO IT. NOW YOU DO I HOPE.

THE THING IS, WHETHER YOU EVEN AGREE WITH ME AS TO ALL THEIR REASONS FOR DOING IT, THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING. PEOPLE NEED TO ASK THEMSELVES WHY THEY SAY THOSE THINGS, THEY ARE NOT STUPID. I ALREADY KNOW WHY, SO I DON'T NEED TO THINK ABOUT IT MUCH.. IT IS THE WORLD AND HISTORY. WHY WOULD PEOPLE WANT TO REWRITE HISTORY? WHY DO PEOPLE USUALLY TRY TO DO THIS? ASK THAT...

WHEN I HEAR THOSE PEOPLE, OUR FELLOW CITIZENS, TALK ABOUT AMERICA AND HISTORY, WHAT THEY SAY IS A SORT OF THEOCRATIC, AUTHORITARIAN STATE. NOT THE AMERICA THE FOUNDING FATHERS ENVISIONED OR CREATED. THINK ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU ALL HEAR IT TOO. NOW WHY DO THEY SAY THOSE THINGS THAT THEY SAY?

52. He is getting bolder. He knows there is nothing we can do about it. nm

54. Scalia is more a politician than a judge.

I remember hearing him speak and somehow he managed to get in an underhanded smear at Robert F. Kennedy. That is how desperate he was to make sure he made his speech political.

He is quite extreme.

Of course, judges have political opinions. But it is really inappropriate for a judge to be so extremely political -- especially on the level of personalities. A judge needs to be able to weigh the various aspects of an issue and separate himself from his own political opinion.

56. Scalia, Thomas and Alito all must go - they do not side with the people.

60. The answer is simple- vote DEMOCRATS in and the court will again be liberal

It's as simple as that

Those that are democrats, or vote with the democrats stop picking on every little thing that Obama did not do on your wedge issue list, and just STFU and vote for Obama in 2012, and then make sure and vote for the democrat in 2016 and 2020

that will insure a favorable democratic/liberal court with most likely being 7 to 2 or 6 to 3 at that point just from retirements

and vote for only those straight down the line who are either democrat, or will caucus with the democrats

and never believe the Ralph Nader's or others who say there is no difference between parties, because just on SCOTUS alone, there is, and that is enough.

Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush ain't gonna give any of us here any part of anything we want.

134. the nutjobs need to be voted out, then they can't stop a vote

when all of the nutjobs on the right are voted out, or the smallest minority, they will not be able to stop it, like all the times in the past.

All it takes is voting, having the votes count, and the far right do nothings will no longer exist.
Someone eventually will not listen to Grover or Rush or Sean, if they want to be reelected.

And remember too- when actually was the last time Rush Limbaugh won anything major?
His constant whining and unhappiness show it has been a long long time that he won anything good.
Mitt Romney as the candidate on his side, shows how little power he actually has. (Same with John McCain in 2008). They talk big, but have no actual power.

64. He ought to be impeached.

66. Funny thing is he was a crappy lawyer

he was at a really big firm yet he never made partner. He was there 6 years and was probaly asked to leave. 6-7 years is when you are on the partner track or you are asked to leave. he left. He really couldn't make it in his chosen profession.

75. He won't, tyrants don't have to resign

and there is no way Congress is going to impeach him (sorry don't know the proper word for it). Face facts...Scarface is going to be on the bench for a long time and commit all kinds of 'breach of trust' and 'conflict of interest' acts...because who is going to stop him? You? Me? Congress?

LOL

We allowed the tyrants to take hold and will pay the price until they leave the bench.

102. this has nothing to do with his age -- many of his decisions have been political for years

He has behaved inappropriately for a long time.

And I have never understood why some people think he's so smart, even if they disagree with him. When one's legal opinions are so twisted and flawed, in order to reach a conclusion he wants, that is no indication of intelligence--in fact, it's an indication of the opposite. And of character weaknesses.

103. Unfortunately, there are lots of things that should happen that won't. n/t

105. OCCUPY FAT TONY

Seriously, I don't know that the United States would get far by the impeachment process, or by starting a shit storm of words. What I think is that a general protest movement such as Occupy should mic check every thing this activist supreme has said to hurt the court.

Of course, I'm more angry at the Democratic members of the Senate who allowed this court to become what it is, thus giving this fat turd unmitigated gall do say what he says, hunts with whom he hunts, and generally votes with whom he votes, all the while, dirtying the SCOTUS by his presence!

120. K&R n/t

124. He will not be impeached.

All the calls for impeachment that are in the thread are nothing more than wishes to the tooth fairy.

The Republicans control the House. They will not allow a bill of impeachment to even get to the floor.

Even if we do gain control of the House and impeach him it must be for actual felonies, not because we don't like his ideology. The Senate must convict by a 2/3 majority and Democrats won't have 67 seats in the Senate.

129. It's best to just show he's a blatant partisan to more people

Because he's not going to get impeached. But hopefully if we have more people realize he's a right-wing nut we can make sure nobody treats his opinions as anything more than Republican propaganda. These days I wonder if he even thinks for himself or if he just spits back what he's told to say.

138. No-not "by any means necessary." We don't advocate violence on this board.

We need to get a few more appointees in Obama's last term who prioritize social justice. Then Scalia and Thomas can go see the USA in Thomas's refurbished passenger bus if they'd like, because their votes that favor the wealthy and ignore the Constitution will be irrelevant.